adikgede Posted May 2, 2004 Report Share Posted May 2, 2004 BB I don't think anyone here is trying make excuses for the people who attacked Thai police and army positions. Nonetheless the job of the police and army is not to retaliate but rather to enforce the law and defend the nations integrity by force if needed. The large numbers of dead and the small numbers of detained people, not to mention the confusion among officials as to whether they are common criminals, terrorists, or separatists, raise the question as to whether or not the security forces have clear rules of engagement or even understand why people are attacking them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgianBoy Posted May 2, 2004 Report Share Posted May 2, 2004 adik, Again, its all in the used terminology used..... In my book retaliation is to counter-attack and inflict similar / more damage that originally suffered. In this case, the police / army eliminated / killed all attackers. They were attacked and killed them. Where did they retaliate ? Again, I never expressed they were right in killing 107 terrorists, but tell me how to proceed in 'civil' way when you are under attack ? BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adikgede Posted May 3, 2004 Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 In this case, the police / army eliminated / killed all attackers. They were attacked and killed them. Where did they retaliate ? So, according to you, it was ok for some muslim to attack soldiers, police, schools, monks, but not ok for the army to retaliate? -bb Those where your words BB. In one instance you say its okay for a security force to kill attackers for attacking and the presumed crimes of attacking schools and monks also. However It would be much easier to determine the motivation of assailants if they are still alive to stand trial for thier crimes, not to mention easier to determine if they had been involved in other crimes like burning down schools or killing monks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BelgianBoy Posted May 3, 2004 Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 adikgede said:In this case, the police / army eliminated / killed all attackers. They were attacked and killed them. Where did they retaliate ? So, according to you, it was ok for some muslim to attack soldiers, police, schools, monks, but not ok for the army to retaliate? -bb Those where your words BB. In one instance you say its okay for a security force to kill attackers for attacking and the presumed crimes of attacking schools and monks also. However It would be much easier to determine the motivation of assailants if they are still alive to stand trial for thier crimes, not to mention easier to determine if they had been involved in other crimes like burning down schools or killing monks. Adik, LOL I wrote where did they retaliate ? stating in fact they did not and thus only defended themselves..... BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pattaya127 Posted May 3, 2004 Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 I never expressed they were right in killing 107 terrorists ------------------------------------ In all due respect, BB, if you write something like that: ".......Excessive ??? what a load of BS.....Get real. Terorists attacked and were eliminated. over and out. next" that's pretty close :: to justifying their actions. No matter the problem at hand, if forces go into a mosque and kill people in cold blood, even the former attackers, this is not police action, or rather, yes, it is, but of the type that maybe thai society may accept, but not us. It is just cold blooded killers going at each other, no applause to anyone, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adikgede Posted May 3, 2004 Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 LOL I wrote where did they retaliate ? stating in fact they did not and thus only defended themselves..... No first you wrote So, according to you, it was ok for some muslim to attack soldiers, police, schools, monks, but not ok for the army to retaliate? and when I said that it was not the job of the army or police to retaliate you wrote : In this case, the police / army eliminated / killed all attackers. They were attacked and killed them. Where did they retaliate ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 3, 2004 Report Share Posted May 3, 2004 i think you misunderstand the situation a bit. the only thing which is gonna result from using such excessive force is a further radicalisation. if this would be such a simplistic problem of some evil islamic terrorists you may be right, but as facts stand it was kids mainly armed with sticks, knifes, and a few automatic weapons. not what i would call a "battleground". the job of the executive is to arrest as many as possible and to bring them to court, where they should have a fair trial. that is the base of "democracy" and is written in the thai constitution as well. as the situation is definately not just a case of islamic terrorists it is far more complex. a large part of the renewed fighting is not international islamic terrorism, but the long ongoing problems of central thai domination, the definition of 'thainess' and exclusion of minorities. this government here is using the same kind of central thai chauvinistic methods as the old dictatorships of the 50's to 80's have used. the insurgents may use islamism, but underlying is that they simply do not want to e forced to adopt central thai culture. also, just have a look around thailand. is it so unusual that gangs of kids go on rampages? it isn't. sign of this government has been since it came to power to answer to existing problems of society only with extreme violence. may i remind you of the drugwar where more than 4000 people were slaughtered by deathsquads? people on blacklists which were put together in a hurry, where puyaibans and other authority figures were given quotas and were threatened to be relieved of their duties if they would not comply. of those 4000 people the vast majority were smallscale dealers, many who were simply innocent, and others who have given up already and were killed straight after they have left the policestations where they were summoned to. since that thailand has experienced a huge wave of violence all over the country. the problems of the south have to been seen in context, first in context of the historical problems of the central thai domination over minorities, secondly in the context of this government's extremely violent answers to existing problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nervous_Dog Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 Interesting todays thai paper mentioned that a number of the terrorists in the mosque and elsewhere had their hands tied and shot in the head. JB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 4, 2004 Report Share Posted May 4, 2004 it wouldn't be the first time. but if that is true in this incident the consequences will be dire, the end of two decades of work by the sensible forces in this country to bring peace to the southern provinces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yehtmae Posted May 5, 2004 Report Share Posted May 5, 2004 Nervous_Dog said:Interesting todays thai paper mentioned that a number of the terrorists in the mosque and elsewhere had their hands tied and shot in the head. JB That's obviously to prevent them coming back as Zombies. (Just seen 'Dawn of the Dead') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.